Richard Dawkins on Whale Evolution - Page 5 - Religion, God, and Theology

ALTER2EGO -to- FOLDnDARK:

Right. It took you five minutes to pull up info about what scientists opine is the 5,000-year-old remains of a man. How, might I ask, did they figure the man was more than 5,000 years old?

It had the appearance of age.

Quote

03-21-2012 , 04:13 AM

#103

Sommerset

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 3,863

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

It had the appearance of age.

At this point, my guess is that AE is a very elaborate troll. He has obviously seen the almost dozen posts which call out his fact/theory confusion and, not only has he not addressed it, he continues to post it as his lynchpin.

Quote

03-21-2012 , 04:28 AM

#104

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sommerset

Wait....you mean if you bold something it doesn't make it true? That sounds like a crazy "THEORY" (not fact).

Quote

03-21-2012 , 04:53 AM

#105

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sommerset

Yeah, it is quite obvious tbh. However, the arguments (if we go beyond the trolling) are pretty the same as non-trolls use... so I say just use the opportunity for some satire.

Quote

03-21-2012 , 05:41 AM

#106

tompakee

banned

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,201

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- FOLDnDARK:

Right. It took you five minutes to pull up info about what scientists opine is the 5,000-year-old remains of a man. How, might I ask, did they figure the man was more than 5,000 years old?

What about when religious relics are claimed to be xxx years old? Speculation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

But you believe it because "scientists" said it; don't you?

But you believe something because it was written in a book? I always felt that the bible was just a childrens bedtime story that got outta hand. Will be funny if in 2000 years the Lord of the rings is the new bible and religious nuts are praying at the alter of Gandalf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

So we're right back where we started—no evidence of macroevolution in which a squirrel evolved into a bat; no evidence of a whale evolving into a bear; and no evidence of a dinosaur evolving into a bird.

In the same breath we could also say

"So we're right back where we started—no evidence of creation in which a squirrel was magically made. no evidence of a whale eating Jonah and no evidence of a of a man dying on a cross and rising 3 days later"

Meanwhile, the word "CREATION" continues to be chained to the word "BIBLETHUMPER" (not fact).

Quote

03-21-2012 , 09:06 AM

#107

Polycomb

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 215

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- FOLDnDARK:

started—no evidence of macroevolution in which a squirrel evolved into a bat; no evidence of a whale evolving into a bear; and no evidence of a dinosaur evolving into a bird. Nothing but trick-phrases such as "speciation" and "gradualism" and "species transition" and "punctuated equilibrium" and "intermediaries"—terminologies that were created by pro-evolution scientists for the sole purpose of impressing the gullible.

Meanwhile, the word "evolution" continues to be chained to the word "THEORY" (not fact).[/COLOR]

i'm pretty conservative about what can and cant' be said about evolution.

you're outright wrong. there is evidence for macro-evolution. micro-evolution itself is evidence. you can argue there's not enough evidence to prove it without a doubt. but don't aruge there's no evidence.

Last edited by Polycomb; 03-21-2012 at 09:12 AM.

Quote

03-21-2012 , 09:12 AM

#108

kb coolman

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 5,452

Dammit if Poe's law doesn't make spotting a troll complicated.

Quote

03-21-2012 , 12:55 PM

#109

kurto

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 17,634

is alter ego also festering zit?

Quote

03-21-2012 , 03:26 PM

#110

FoldnDark

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,930

Yeah, I'm satisfied he's just trollin. Nobody who can operate a computer, spell, and set up posts with quotes and bold print could also be too stupid to realize science works. It's not like we're just speculating our car will start or our cell phone will work. I guess like someone said, the mods just have a light hand on trolls in RGT.

Quote

03-21-2012 , 03:28 PM

#111

FoldnDark

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,930

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

Nailed it. PM'ed another poster and he said he would probably start arguing dating techniques. LMAO

You owe me 10 mirron!

Quote

03-21-2012 , 03:29 PM

#112

Alchemist

old hand

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,947

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurto

is alter ego also festering zit?

Na, A2E is a JW and female. FZ is male and has 'multiple degrees in science'.

Quote

03-21-2012 , 04:38 PM

#113

gskowal

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,521

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurto

is alter ego also festering zit?

nobody knows, they do have similar anti-evolutionary view...

Quote

03-21-2012 , 04:53 PM

#114

Husker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 12,881

Gotta be a troll. Surely a real JW would be out knocking on doors instead of posting on here?

Quote

03-21-2012 , 06:14 PM

#115

Hopey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,004

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoldnDark

That's only true for one of the mods. The other mod shares many of FZ views in regards to science, Richard Dawkins, and the TOE.

Quote

03-21-2012 , 06:53 PM

#116

rockfsh

veteran

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,530

Since A2E and FZ only post in RGT, it is likely they are trolls and may not even play poker.

Quote

03-21-2012 , 10:04 PM

#117

Alter2Ego

grinder

Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 436

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompakee

ALTER2EGO -to- TOMPAKEE:

Obviously, since the squirrel (and everything else for that matter) didn't get here by evolution, it got here by means of creation. Even if one were to accept that all forms of life evolved from a single ancestor (macroevolution), the evolution theory still has an insurmountable problem: Where did the single ancestor come from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompakee

ALTER2EGO -to- TOMPAKEE:

That's where you're in error. The Bible is the only book in existence that has been proven to be written under Divine inspiration of Jehovah. The proof of this is the accurate fulfillment of almost 2,000 Bible prophesies, many of which have been confirmed by archeology and secular history (meaning history independent of the Bible).

Meanwhile, what do the scientists in the pro-evolution camp bring to the table? Nothing but trick-phrases and speculations that are fit only for the lastest episode of the BBC's science fiction TV series, DOCTOR WHO. Then when it's all said and done, they lap their tails and are forced to admit as follows:

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: ALL SPECIES ARE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER BY BRIDGELESS GAPS; intermediates between species are not observed.... The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Ernst Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

Quote

03-21-2012 , 10:25 PM

#118

asdfasdf32

True Facts

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 13,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

How the single ancestor came to be is not part of evolutionary theory. It falls under the study of abiogenesis (how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes).

Remember that even though we don't yet have a complete model of how abiogenesis works doesn't make "God did it." any more valid of an answer. I could equally answer the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it.

Last edited by asdfasdf32; 03-21-2012 at 10:31 PM.

Quote

03-21-2012 , 11:29 PM

#119

CompleteDegen

veteran

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,480

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

First of all, this is an atrocious false dichotomy. Secondly, are you one of those people who think evolution purports to explain the origin of life? I can allay your fears right now because it does no such thing. There's still room for your god, at least for now. Seems like your entire debate is based on a straw man argument, because evolution cannot explain the origin of life.

Quote

03-22-2012 , 04:46 AM

#120

tompakee

banned

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,201

TOMPAKEE -to- ALTER2EGO:

That's where you're in error. The Bible is the only book in existence that has been proven to be written under Divine inspiration of Jehovah. The proof of this is the accurate fulfillment of almost 2,000 Bible prophesies, many of which have been confirmed by archeology and secular history (meaning history independent of the Bible).

You say it has "been proven to be written under the divine inspiration of Jehovah"
but where is the proof of this? Just because the authors claimed to have been inspired by "god" does not make this true i am sure some pretty good stuff has been written by people "inspired" while high on LSD, peyote and other such exotic enhancers. Also you say there has been "the accurate fulfillment of almost 2,000 Bible prophesies" But then could we not argue that Nostradamus with his many "fullfilled prophecies" was a form of god?

Quote

03-22-2012 , 05:08 AM

#121

Alter2Ego

grinder

Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 436

Quote:

Originally Posted by CompleteDegen

First of all, this is an atrocious false dichotomy. Secondly, are you one of those people who think evolution purports to explain the origin of life? I can allay your fears right now because it does no such thing. There's still room for your god, at least for now. Seems like your entire debate is based on a straw man argument, because evolution cannot explain the origin of life.

ALTER2EGO -to- COMPLETE DEGEN:

I guess that means you have no answer for how this "single ancestor" showed up--in order for evolution to have supposedly taken place from the get-go. Richard Dawkins claimed it started off as slime in the sea, made it to land, and sprouted legs. But before I go there, let me give the dictionary definition of "accident."

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as: "a nonessential event that happens by chance and has UNDESIRABLE or UNFORTUNATE RESULTS."

Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said:

"To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened."

Jastrow added:

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."

Atheist Evolutionists rely upon the assumption that life resulted without a Creator. This theory insists that life on earth resulted from spontaneous generation (accidents in which things happened with no intelligent direction). They argue that from accidental CHAOS, lifeless chemicals became living, well-ordered, precise organisms.

Evolutionist Richard Dawkins speculates in his book, The Selfish Gene, that in the beginning, Earth's atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, lightening, and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart; then they formed into AMINO ACIDS, some of which reached the sea and combined into protein-like compounds and became a LIFELESS "ORGANIC SOUP." Then according to Dawkins, a "particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident"--a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself and cluster together--by accident. These molecules wrapped a protective protein membrane around themselves--by accident--and generated the first living cell. While admitting that this was EXCEEDINGLY IMPROBABLE, Dawkins insists that it must have happened.

Thereby Dawkins defied logic by insisting that accidents--which, according to the dictionary definition, produce undesirable or unfortunate results--must have somehow done what he himself admits is "exceedingly improbable." (Source: The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, p. 16)

Quote

03-22-2012 , 05:17 AM

#122

MelchyBeau

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 6,043

Quote:

Definition of ACCIDENT

1
a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident

Quote

03-22-2012 , 08:16 AM

#123

kb coolman

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 5,452

I wonder if A2E even knows what a strawman is?

Quote

03-22-2012 , 09:02 AM

#124

tompakee

banned

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,201

Quote:

Originally Posted by kb coolman

I wonder if A2E even knows what a strawman is?

Of course he does!!!

Spoiler:

Keep up the good work

Quote

03-22-2012 , 09:03 AM

#125

Disinterested

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 324

Quote:

Originally Posted by festeringZit

The bottom line, is that I have clearly shown that evolutionists
are extremely biased (and at times disingenuous) they see things through
their biased materialistic world-view, and are constantly distorting the
data to fit into their paradigm. They accuse creationists of doing what
they are clearly guilty of doing, over and over. And, the lemmings
swallow this crap hook, line and sinker.

Why is it that both sides of a debate paint each other the same way? Are you happy you on a team?
Do you think that talking like this is actually achieving anything? You read a book written by an academic, and you had a closed mind. Don't you feel ashamed? Don't you see that failing to accept what your "enemy" says is just as bad for your "team"?

You know we all the same? Try and not feel so defensive, and let someone who has formed an opinion over decades of thought atleast have an effect on you.

Aren't religious people ashamed of being so inflexible?

Quote

Page 5 of 8

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 5 of 8

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Last